UNITED NATIONS — Ecuador says it has invited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to address a meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly via a videolink from his refuge in the country’s London embassy.

This can only be understood an attempt by Ecuador to ratchet up tensions with the UK, so it shows that Ecuador is not negotiating with the UK in good faith: further evidence, leading to the same conclusion, is the fact that Assange himself, at the end of last week, was attempting to draw Argentina into the affair against the UK

61. should I do weekly or quarterly reports?

53. Yep. Gotta keep labeling the propaganda for what it is.

The Assange smearing/spinning/rewriting is an urgent goal for the government and the one percent, because this story threatens to open more eyes to what our government really has become, even under a Democratic President, and how ruthless the authoritarianism can become when unflattering secrets are revealed.

Any story that threatens to reveal the collusion between government and the one percent, and especially stories that reveal the corrupt use of government to punish and silence those who would expose their collusion, will always be urgently spun like this for public consumption.

3. This is good news.

5. To paraphrase an astute comment from Obama's speech to the UN today:

When a person can simply click a button on their cell phone to send information far and wide, you really cannot control the dissemination of information.

If a the transmission and dissemination of a controversial and insulting film cannot be controlled, then the time for secrets and thought and information control is past. There is no way to reassert the "ownership" on the media or on information.

The fact is that to many of the emerging nations, Assange is at the same time a phenomenon to be feared and to be embraced.

The President's speech about embracing diversity and free speech was wonderful today. There is no escaping the fact that if we start repressing people like Assange, however annoying they may be, however much they frustrate our desire to be in control of the world or at least our own information, we will not succeed. The technology has taken the matter out of our control.

Last week, when Stevens was killed in Benghazi, CNN found Stevens personal diary or notebook. Stevens' family was, naturally, unhappy that CNN broadcast information from the diary without the permission (if I understand the situation correctly) of the family. I suspect that the Obama administration was also unhappy about that.

Too bad. If CNN found the information, the book abandoned somewhere or was given the book by some sort, and if CNN deemed it newsworthy, then CNN enjoys the First Amendment right to publish the information it found.

No different for Assange. He was handed information. He "found" that information. It was his to publish.

Now it is time for the US government to be consistent. If we believe in freedom of the press, we let Assange speak and be free. If not, how can we expect countries like Egypt or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Syria or Saudi Arabia or Libya to believe our claim that we value freedom of religion and speech above all else. (As the First Amendment requires us to do.)

7. so far there has been no prosecution of Manning

Rule of Law Abandoned in Bradley Manning Prosecution
by Nathan Fuller, September 14, 2012
Print This | Share This

Bradley Manning’s critics need to be more careful if they want to accuse him of breaking the law. The real outrage is the way prosecutors and the military more broadly have handled his case: the Marines and Army have violated their own code of justice in several ways, for several months, precluding a fair trial and making a mockery of the rule of law.

The complaints of critics reveal the fundamental hypocrisy in Manning’s case — the rule of law is not applied evenly. While war criminals, torturers, and known murderers walk freely, the military is aggressively punishing the messenger who exposed heinous crimes and rampant abuse. Prosecutors go beyond disciplining a soldier for stepping out of line, attempting to associate whistleblowing with terrorism by charging Manning with “aiding the enemy.”

22. You are incorrect. There has been no trial, but there is a prosecution. nt

31. Wrong, msanthrope! No charges have been filed against Assange!

The sex allegations are so flimsy and absurd that the first Swedish prosecutor dropped the case and told Assange he could leave Sweden. Then they brought in a more politically ambitious prosecutor to pursue Assange "for questioning"--strictly to get him into custody (for "rendition" to the U.S.) in my opinion. Still no charges have been filed on any kind of sex allegation. This is all about QUESTIONING. The U.K. threatened to storm the Ecuadoran embassy to get hold of a man wanted for questioning on allegations that the first prosecutor dropped.

Assange was being set up for an arrest. That's ALL the current Swedish prosecutors really want. They want him in custody though they have no case against him! Furthermore, he has repeatedly made himself available for questioning and they have refused to question him! Why? The latest offer is for Ecuador to move Assange to their embassy in Sweden so he can be "questioned" there. And they will turn it down, believe me. They have no interest in Assange on these sex allegations. It is all a pretext to get him into custody and "rendered" to the U.S. for the crime of journalism.

39. Um--Do you realize I was replying to a post about Bradley Manning, not Mr. Assange?

That's number one. Number two--perhaps you haven't noticed but an issuance of an EAW would indicate that a prosecution of Mr. Assange is indeed underway in Sweden. Number three--he has a prosecution against him in Great Britian for bail jumping.

You seem to think the world's slowest black bag operation is going on, but you've provided no proof of same.

64. "... It is a central contention of the defence that the warrant was issued for questioning

rather than prosecution ... I am satisfied that there is no equivocal statement or ambiguity in the warrant. The English version of the warrant states that it is for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. The warrant refers to offences, indicates the relevant provisions of Swedish criminal law; and identifies specific conduct against Mr Assange ... The person who knows whether she wants the defendant for the purpose of being prosecuted is the Swedish prosecutor ... The fact that Sweden requires a person to be interrogated, before a formal decision to charge is made, is not determinative. Each country has its own procedures for prosecuting offences ... In summary: ... looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person and is wanted for prosecution ..."
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

17. There were rumors of a grand jury before the Swedish matter was big in the press.

And members of Congress expressed the desire to try Assange. Those statements have not been withdrawn as far as I know. There have been no apologies for the excess zeal in those statements.

Assange has grounds to be worried and to have sought asylum. He will continue to need asylum until it becomes clear that no charges will be brought. That could take a while. I don't blame him for being careful. I think he should be treated like any other journalist.

If a guy can make some provocative and fictional movie that causes disturbances around the world with impunity, then Assange should be able to publish provocative truths with as much if not more impunity. The First Amendment applies both to the maker of the awful film and to Assange. That is my view. I agree with Obama's statement in his speech this morning. It was a great speech.

28. Rumors? So? The grand jury is needed to prosecute Manning.

They need to connect Manning to Assange in order to prosecute Manning for the leaks.

Other than that, there's just rumor and speculation.

Why is Assange acting like he's at more risk of extradition from Sweden than from the UK? They both have extradition agreements with the US, and the one with Sweden specifically excludes people charged with political crimes. So he would be LESS likely to be extradited from Sweden than from the UK.

34. The nature of the investigation was revealed by Australian media...

through FOIA documents. Assange is being investigated as a co-conspirator of Manning and may be prosecuted for espionage, if he had foreknowledge that releasing the cables could harm US national security. This is beyond rumor and speculation, and jibes with Eric Holder's stated goals in 2010.

Also, how would Assange be at risk of extradition from the UK when the UK won't be detaining him? As soon as he steps outside the embassy he would be sent to Sweden anyway?

37. If the US had sent an extradition request, the UK could have detained him at any point

in the months before he went into the Embassy.

The Australian media has revealed nothing except rumor and speculation. I believe Charles Rangel, who says there are no laws under which he could even be prosecuted. The more Assange and his lawyer claim this, the longer this will drag out since otherwise it could appear that the Obama administration was knuckling under to pressure -- even though the truth is they long ago gave up any thought of prosecuting him.

38. The Australian embassy reported...

''a broad range of possible charges <against Assange> are under consideration, including espionage and conspiracy''. That sounds pretty straightforward to me. Notice that the Australian media is explaining what the Australian embassy in Washington DC is reporting, who have been cooperating with the investigation.

I don't know that the Obama Admin has given up any thought of prosecution, in fact Reuters reported in August, 2012 that they were divided on the issue. If the Head of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Vice President and the Secretary of State all want him prosecuted (and all who happen to be high-level Democrats) then surely Obama will take their advice into account.

49. They WERE under consideration, but -- upon consideration -- it was clear that the laws

weren't there to support it.

The more Assange and his lawyer squawk about this, the longer they are going to drag things out. The Obama administration can't be seen as knuckling under to political pressure from Assange. Otherwise, this could have been over long ago.

51. Do you have any proof of this or is it just mere speculation?

I could just as easily speculate that the Obama administration is playing a waiting game and when the timing is right will move forward with prosecution. Bluffing could work in his favor because if Assange's protectors decide he can move to Sweden without asylum, he would then be exposed to possible extradition to the US.

Charlie Rangel is only a Representative and does not sit on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, so he is not exposed to the same high-level information as those who have been calling for Assange's prosecution. The Manning case is also shrouded in secrecy so the DOJ is being very tight-lipped about what lies at the center of the case for conspiracty between Manning and Assange.

The argument that "Assange is not a citizen of the US, therefore he is not subject to prosecution under the Espionage Act" does not hold up since there is case history of foreign spies being indicted under the Act.

54. What is a fact is that the Obama administration made no move to extradict Assange from

the UK in all the months he was there. What is also a fact is that the extradition agreement with Sweden (but not with the UK) excludes political prisoners; and that if he were extradited to Sweden now, both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to a further extradition to the US. So if the US were interested, it would make no sense to encourage Sweden to extradite him first, when that would just put up additional barriers for the US to extradite him.

So, yes, I am speculating about the US's lack of interest in extraditing Assange -- but you and Assange are speculating about the opposite. And there are plenty of indicators that I am correct.

56. See post #55 below...

the Manning case is not far enough along and likely has not produced sufficient evidence that can be divulged yet. The DOJ has been tripping up on releasing classified information to Manning's defense team. The Manning trial won't even start until next year.

Sweden has much tougher laws regarding pre-trial detention of suspects, so much so that they have come under criticism by anti-torture groups. They would deny him communication with anyone other than his lawyer. This reason alone might be enough to warrant him being detained in Sweden by those who fear Wikileaks.

55. Because the US is not ready to try to extradite Assange at this time.

If Sweden extradites Assange, they can delay his trial and hold him in custody as high risk of flight as soon as they charge him. So Sweden can hold Assange as a prisoner until and if the US wants to extradite him. At this time, the US probably does not have any evidence to support extraditing Assange. Frankly, I do not know whether the US will ever get that kind of evidence, but at this time, I don't think they have it.

So that is a possible reason why the extradition to Sweden is so important and why the US is not seeking extradition. -- Because they are buying time.

It is also possible that Sweden is expected to railroad Assange into jail which would silence him and serve as an example to other truly independent news media reporters that independent reporting does not pay.

So it is not hard to figure out possible reasons. But they remain theories. We can only know for sure if the US and Sweden decide to tell us what their strategies are. And they are unlikely to do that. Assange has smart lawyers. And he is also smart -- smart enough to do what his lawyers advise him to do. That is what anyone in his situation should do.

Lawyers confronted with a case like Assange's do a lot of research. You and I are just guessing. So Assange is wise to trust his lawyers and their research and knowledge.

a) as you say yourself - the time period only starts when charges are brought, when the prosecutor files with a court for a summons, which is equivalent to an indictment. However, as we all know, this hasn't happened yet. The preliminary investigation alone can still take months. You never know when someone whose presence during an interview the prosecutor deems indispensable might catch a cold, you know, like in early September 2010. There are no limits to pre-trial detention in Sweden. If an accused is considered a flight risk, he will be held in detention, however long the investigation will take.

b) "... If the defendant is under arrest or in detention, the main hearing shall be held within one week from the date of the institution of the prosecution unless, as a result of a measure stated in Section 11 or 12 ..." (see below)

c) "... or another circumstance, a longer postponement is necessary."
Chapter 45, INSTITUTION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, Section 14 (p. 248)

Section 11
For the purpose of making possible a full trial of the case at the main hearing in an uninterrupted sequence, the court may direct the prosecutor to complete the preliminary investigation or, if no preliminary investigation has been held, to conduct one.

Section 12
If required in order to assure that all evidence shall be available at the main hearing in an uninterrupted sequence, orders shall be issued without delay for obtaining expert opinions, production of written evidence, or objects for viewing or inspection, or for taking any other preparatory measure.

9. So, do you have any evidence....

that the UK views this as hostile behavior? Ecuador is a very small player compared to the UK and the only reason the UK is taking this so seriously is because of the support Ecuador has garnered from other other Latin American nations, paricularly when the UK was hinting that they might enter the embassy to arrest Assange. That was what originally racheted up tensions.

24. British minister predicts long showdown over Assange

... Hague told reporters in New York that he had held talks with Ecuador's Vice President Lenin Moreno in August over the Australian activist and that negotiations would continue.

"I've seen no sign of any breakthrough since our meeting," Hague said.

"The position was to uphold the law in the United Kingdom. That remains the position. This may go on for some time." The British minister is to hold talks with Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino on Thursday.

Hague would not comment on Assange's plan to speak to diplomats and reporters at the UN event organized by the Ecuador government ...

The prosecutor’s assessment is that, for the purpose of the investigation, Mr Assange needs to be available in Sweden during the preliminary investigation. Without going into the details about the work of the investigation, it can be mentioned that there is a need, during interviews with Mr Assange, to be able to present, and question him about, the evidence that has emerged in the investigation to date. When continuing the investigation there is also a need to be able to carry out supplementary interviews, as required, with Mr Assange and the other persons involved.

Under Swedish law, the defendant must be present in person at the trial in cases involving this type of crime. If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange, his personal presence is required in Sweden so that a trial can be held and any sentence enforced. The court’s detention order means that Mr Assange has been detained to ensure this.

Nowhere does it say that Assange must be taken into police custody immediately as a matter of law. It only indicates that the detention order is needed to ensure that he is physically present "if the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assage" Assange also needs to be physically present for interactive questioning.

Since the UK has no need and no desire to keep Assange within the UK, one would think they could be discussing the possibility with Sweden of having him moved to the Swedish embassy for questioning. When and if the time comes for Assange to face trial, then Sweden can work with Ecuador directly without the UK necessarilly being an intermediary.

Now you will likely say that Assange doesn't deserve special treatment and needs be treated like any other suspect. The fact is that he is already receiving special treatment by Ecuador, whether he is in the UK or Sweden it would be the same. Also, keep in mind that most suspects for this level of crime and amount of evidence would not be detained in prison. Assange's defense team has outstanding complaints against Sweden for their treatment of Assange.

44. There has been a Swedish court order for Assange's arrest since 2010: Assange appealed

that order in Sweden and lost, and then he lost again on subsequent appeal in Sweden. Why? Well, Assange has a little habit of skipping out:
(1) according to testimony in the UK magistrate's court, from Assange's own lawyer, Assange left Sweden in 2010 while the Swedish authorities were negotiating with the lawyer to arrange further interrogation of Assange; and
(2) Assange subsequently agreed to return to Sweden for interrogation but did not appear as agreed

Based on Assange's habit of skipping out, the Swedish authorities opposed bail for Assange in the UK in late 2010, but bail was granted nevertheless -- and (of course!) Assange jumped bail, when his UK appeals were exhausted

Right now, Assange is misusing the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK to ignore the rulings of English courts -- and he proposes next to misuse the Ecuadorian embassy in Swedish to ignore the rulings of the Swedish courts: they, naturally, will have no interest in this charade

46. You probably haven't heard

there is a special event scheduled at the UN headquarters for today:

High-level event on “Strengthening the international human rights system: The diplomatic asylum” (organized by the Permanent Mission of Ecuador)
From 18:30 to 20:00 in Conference Room 6 (NLB).
http://t.co/FuTpyKex

47. The ICJ ruled in1950 that diplomactic ayslum is not part of accepted international law

Ecuador may have granted asylum to the man inside their embassy, but the United Kingdom doesn't recognize it. At issue are divergent views on the concept of diplomatic asylum -- a nation's granting of asylum to someone not inside its territory. The concept of diplomatic asylum is as old as the practice of having permanent embassies in foreign countries. It is tied closely with the practice of diplomatic immunity, which is more well known.

But controversies over countries using diplomatic asylum to protect people wanted for crimes led to the practice falling out of favor, according to a United Nations report devoted to the subject in 1975.

The result is that today, the view in most of world is that diplomatic asylum, in essence, does not exist.

One last tidbit of academic dryness before considering the Assange case: The prevailing view that diplomatic asylum is not part of accepted international law was settled in a case between Peru and Colombia before the International Court of Justice in 1950. Victor de la Haya, a Peruvian, led an unsuccessful rebellion in Peru and was wanted by authorities there. He hid in the Colombian embassy in Lima and asked for, and received asylum from Colombia. Peru, however, refused to grant safe passage. Sound familiar?

48. It is quite funny

that some CNN hack claims to believe that "diplomatic asylum" does not exist, LOL.

No such concerns were ever raised, especially by CNN hacks, when the US complied with the wishes of those who sought shelter in a US embassy. Nor did anybody complain about the "misuse" of embassies when thousands of East Germans stormed the West German embassies in Budapest and Prague. Ambassadors can pretty much do what they want with the premises of their embassies. The US uses them for their CIA goons, who sometimes kidnap locals, or shoot them dead.

Julian Assange has been granted policital asylum by Ecuador. He had the right to ask and they had the right to grant asylum. Nothing else matters. The idea of "diplomatic asylum", using an embassy as a shelter, is widely accepted in LA and they have a convention stating it. They believe it strengthens human rights. That's what they'll be talking about tonight, I guess.

50. LA can believe and do what they want

62. The discussion tonight is about human rights

and perhaps it will be pointed out that "diplomatic asylum" ought to be universally recognized, not just universally practiced.

High-level event on “Strengthening the international human rights system: The diplomatic asylum” (organized by the Permanent Mission of Ecuador)
From 18:30 to 20:00 in Conference Room 6 (NLB).
http://t.co/FuTpyKex

The irony of the current situation is that Ecuador is trying to prevent abuse of the process. They have suggested ways to proceed with the condom allegations. As it stands, the Swedes and the Brits are the ones who are stalling.

70. Why do you keep minimizing the rape charges?

you know that there were four separate charges that included forced sex and aggressive behavior - it much more than a broken condom and you know it. "Condom allegations" smacks of minimizing the victims' allegations. The charge is rape - why can't you bring yourself to say that word?

75. I know the prosecutor is investigating possible charges

based on information that is for the most part publicly known.

Three of these possible charges are directly linked to the alleged unwillingness and/or cunning to forego the use of condoms during consensual sexual relations. I suggest you read the police interviews, or some of the extensive discussions we have had here, to finally get a grasp on what is going on. Any reasonable interpretation of the alleged facts comes to the conclusion that the "rape" allegation (singular form) is absurd. The only possible charge being talked about that is not to do with condoms is even more absurd and not even worth commenting on, IMHO.

82. No, I don't think it is up to the Swedes to decide

what constitutes rape, just think a second about it before you write, LOL.

If you are interested in what the allegations are actually about, just read the old threads, there are plenty of them around. I'm not interested in constantly repeating myself. Thanks for you attention, anyway, and good bye.

76. That was a strange case. Raymond Davis showed some consular ID, but he never showed embassy ID.

52. Correction to the CNN hack:

the concept of political asylum fell out of favor in the Old World because it became abused by embassies providing shelter to common criminals, but diplomatic asylum has become a recognized standard in the New World and is made use of, particularly, due to political turmoil and frequent revolutions in South America. A distinction is therefore made between common criminals and those who face persecution for political crimes. Even the United States has made use of the practice of providing refuge to dissidents in embassies who eventually settle in the United States.

The ICJ is supposed to account for "universal practices" and if a practice occurs in the New World, then it makes sense that 60 years later maybe the Old World would begin to evolve as well. The question is certainly not settled by a case that happened 60 years ago.

The president of Ecuador has dismissed the allegations against Julian Assange by claiming that a man who shares a bed with a woman cannot be accused of rape. Rafael Correa said the accusations would not be considered crimes in '90 to 95 per cent of the planet' and questioned the behaviour and motives of the alleged victims ...

... The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape ...

68. Fact is

that nobody can cite an example where a similar scenario has led to prosecution over "sexual" misconduct or worse.

Correa just states the obvious.

The woman was miffed that a condom wasn't used, is all, and her anger got worse once she learned that she had not been the only one bedding the big star.

She never said she was "unconscious". She never said she was "asleep". She never objected to the sexual act. She was shocked when she learned that Assange was going to be arrested. She felt run over by the police. I know, I know, things to ignore for some people ...

72. The actual facts of the case can be determined in the Swedish courts -- but

you are simply wrong to assert that no one has ever been prosecuted on the theory that sex with an unconscious woman constitutes rape: sex with an unconscious woman is, in fact, regarded as rape in many jurisdictions

Philadelphia Police arrested a man after they say he was seen having sex with a woman who was unconscious and laying on the road. According to police, 48-year-old Warren Fitts, how is homeless, now faces rape and other charges ...

74. the sad fact is that Swedish prosecutors are powerless

when it comes to stopping the political persecution of Assange. They depend on the action or non-action of politicians regarding safeguards and guarantees against extradition to the US where Assange is considered an "enemy of the state":

85. You're actually trying this shit on me?

For your own sake, don't waste your time. You're only making yourself look like a weird creep by constantly harping on about this. I hope you're at least getting paid well, because the humiliation most people would feel for carrying out your actions would be insufferable.

13. What is also interesting...

a former British diplomat claims that the UK was pressured by the US to enter the Ecuadorian embassy and arrest Assange. Why, pray tell, would the US do that if this was only about Assange trying to escape Swedish sex crime charges?

16. Makes no sense. I think that the national security bureaucracy is just furious because Assange

made them feel like fools. It's just ego and pride.

The national security apparatus needs to get smart enough to deal with the new reality of the internet. There is no way to avoid it. Putting it off probably won't work.

The way they have been handling it invites pranksters to complicate the problems they already have with real spies. They have to learn to deal with pranksters without spending too many resources on them.

18. The US investigation against Assange...

is treating Assange as a potential spy, not just a prankster. He is being investigated for potential charges under the espionage act (similar to the foreign Israeli spies who were indicted in 2005) and as a co-conspirator with Bradley Manning for breaking into a secret US database. High-level Democrats, including Feinstein, Biden and Clinton, have all called for his prosecution. This has been taken very seriously.

97. I'll point out that no one forces you to read my remarks

14. Desperately clinging to an interpretation of events

that was discredited weeks ago. The UK/US/Sweden "innocent pursuit of justice" is evidently no such thing.

It is the UK forces that have armed agents staking out the Ecuadorian embassy. If I were running Ecuador's government I would try to keep Assange in the news, too, to remind people of the real source of hostility.

If I were you, I'd read some Orwell and ask my boss for a new assignment.

the United Nations via video from his Ecuadorian refuge in London as a "stunt" ...

He has every right to do that but that is a matter between him and Equador," Mr Carr told media.

"I wouldn't think there'd be a great deal of interest in it in what is a legal dispute between Mr Assange and Sweden," Mr Carr told media.

"I wouldn't think there would be any resonance for his case in a UN forum devoted to weightier and more substantial matters than the desire of Sweden to have him answer questions in Sweden about allegations of a criminal matter'' ...

26. Mr Carr is very selective in choosing whom to help.

When an attractive young female lawyer was captured in Libya while working for the ICC, he took immediate action to secure her release. There was nothing about "it's between Ms Taylor and the ICC", which would be the exact correlation between Julian Assange and Ecuador, or Assange and Sweden.

The real difference was that Melinda Taylor hadn't pissed off the United States, so she deserved diplomatic assistance from Australia.

65. "... Since he was arrested in the UK in December 2010 he has been visited by consular officials,

they have in turn facilitated a visit for family members, two consular officials have been present at each of Mr Assange's court appearances in London. On the day of his release on bail consular officials made contact with his lawyers ..."
Fed Govt defends its consular assistance to Assange
Meredith Griffiths reported this story on Thursday, May 31, 2012 18:51:00
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3515562.htm